S.M. etc. et al. v City of New York et al., New York City Health + Hospitals/Lincoln Medical Center
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Healthcare and civil discovery: whether a criminal defendant's filing of a CPL 250.10 [criminal procedure rule requiring notice of intent to present psychiatric evidence] notice in a related criminal case waives physician-patient and psychologist-patient confidentiality protections, allowing disclosure of hospital psychiatric records in a civil negligence action against a medical provider.
The Supreme Court, Bronx County denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to renew as moot after previously denying disclosure and granting a protective order, reasoning earlier that Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13(c)(1) [permits disclosure of confidential mental health records when the interests of justice significantly outweigh confidentiality] did not permit disclosure absent consent or waiver and that Martin had not waived confidentiality.
The Appellate Division reversed the order denying renewal as moot, granted leave to renew under CPLR 2221(e) [motion to renew based on new facts and reasonable justification], and upon renewal granted plaintiffs' cross-motion to compel production of Martin's medical, psychiatric, and mental health records.
The court held that Martin's filing of a CPL 250.10 notice placed her mental condition in issue and therefore waived the privileges under CPLR 4504 [physician-patient privilege] and CPLR 4507 [psychologist-patient privilege]. The notice was also a new fact that did not exist when the original motion was filed, so renewal was proper.
Background
The case arises from an April 27, 2019 stabbing in which Shanice Martin stabbed her two children, killing one and injuring the other. The surviving child and her father sued multiple defendants, including New York City Health + Hospitals/Lincoln Medical Center (NYCHH), alleging NYCHH negligently treated Martin shortly before the attack despite her history of mental illness and failed to detain her, report child abuse concerns, or otherwise protect the child. Plaintiffs sought Martin's hospital and mental health records from NYCHH, but NYCHH refused to produce them, asserting confidentiality protections. Plaintiffs later obtained records from Martin's criminal case showing that she filed a CPL 250.10 notice stating she intended to present a psychiatric defense because she suffered from a dangerous mental disorder rendering her unable to appreciate the consequences or wrongfulness of her acts.
Lower Court Decision
On the original motion, the Supreme Court granted NYCHH a protective order and denied plaintiffs' request to compel disclosure, finding no waiver and no sufficient basis for disclosure in the interests of justice. While an appeal from that order was pending, plaintiffs moved for renewal based on newly submitted criminal case materials, including Martin's CPL 250.10 notice. After the Appellate Division's earlier 2024 decision held that disclosure was unavailable under Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13(c)(1) absent consent or waiver, but allowed in camera review for possible nonmedical factual observations, the motion court denied renewal as moot.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held the renewal motion was not moot because its prior decision had expressly declined to decide whether the CPL 250.10 notice effected a waiver. The court further held renewal was proper because the notice of intent did not exist when plaintiffs filed their original cross-motion and would have changed the result. On the merits, the court concluded that by filing the CPL 250.10 notice, Martin affirmatively placed her mental condition at issue, thereby waiving confidentiality protections over the NYCHH records. The court emphasized that the notice requirement exists to enable the prosecution to obtain mental health evidence to rebut a mental infirmity defense, and under the expanded criminal discovery regime of CPL article 245 [automatic and accelerated criminal discovery], that duty to disclose is triggered early. The court therefore reversed, granted renewal, and compelled disclosure.
Legal Significance
This decision establishes in the First Department that the filing of a CPL 250.10 notice alone can waive physician-patient and psychologist-patient privileges for related civil litigation when the defendant's mental condition remains at issue, even before trial and even if the criminal defendant is effectively a nonparty in the civil case. The court rejected the view that waiver occurs only after the defendant actually presents psychiatric evidence at trial, and clarified that once a litigant uses mental condition as a sword, the privilege cannot also be used as a shield.
In a related civil action, a criminal defendant's notice of intent to assert a psychiatric defense can itself open otherwise confidential medical and mental health records to discovery, and a later motion to renew may be granted when that notice arose after the original motion and materially changes the waiver analysis.